2 hours ago, EVENKEEL said:

For one as an illegal the rapist shouldn't have been in the USA to commit this heinous crime. 

First the MAGA crowd focus on this story not being verified and bleet endlessly about the horrible President Biden using this "unverified" story. And when it turns out that it was indeed true they focus on the immigration status of the rapist, not that a child suffering a horrible crime and has her suffering exacerbated by the shameful lying religious nutters that constitute the majority of the SCOTUS.

Hillary was indeed right and I'd use the same term for the individuals behind the overturning of Roe v. Wade. One can only hope that the women in the USA finally have had enough of this s*** and let their feelings be known on the streets and at the ballot box.

 

1 hour ago, ozimoron said:

The rapist's immigration status was only raised in order to oppose bail. It is irrelevant to the crime. You have not yet outlined any way in which they are connected.

They are, of course, not, but as a digression it's manna from heaven for the trumpsters.

59 minutes ago, JeffersLos said:

It's simple to cross state lines, so what's the big deal about that? 

From Ohio Columbus to where she had the termination in Indianapolis is around a 3 hour journey one way. Then the time spent there while the procedure was carried out? Probably an overnight stay for monitoring then the return journey back. Not so simple

1 minute ago, JeffersLos said:

Wow. Such a massive trek. 3 hours. 

 

The 17 hour flight my young sons went on from Malaysia to LA pales in comparison. ????

Had your sons been raped and had their trip forced on them?

Just now, Bkk Brian said:

Had your sons been raped

Not that I know of. 

 

1 minute ago, Bkk Brian said:

and had their trip forced on them?

Of course. They hardly volunteered to sit in a seat for 17 hours. ????

2 minutes ago, JeffersLos said:

Not that I know of. 

 

Of course. They hardly volunteered to sit in a seat for 17 hours. ????

The fact you find this amusing says just about all that needs to be said, quite revolting

58 minutes ago, JeffersLos said:

Wow. Such a massive trek. 3 hours.

You make light of the current apparent minor inconvenience of having to travel interstate for an abortion. Of course, lots of holes can be poked into even that facile argument. What happens when the scotus decide that fetuses "are people too " and that abortion is murder? Your "massive trek" jibe becomes completely irrelevant. Even if the court refrains from that anti-internationalist view of abortion and the meaning of life, the number of adjacent states which ban rape and incest as reasons for abortion will rise soon. Your minor trek becomes a major trek. Does that change your calculus or can we just write off your comment as being a throw away and not intended to engender any actual debate on the merits of that idea?

Edited July 14, 20224 yr by ozimoron

1 hour ago, JeffersLos said:

Wow. Such a massive trek. 3 hours. 

 

The 17 hour flight my young sons went on from Malaysia to LA pales in comparison. ????

And did your sons have an operation or an abortion during that period as the 10 year old girl did?

2 hours ago, JeffersLos said:

It's simple to cross state lines, so what's the big deal about that? 

What a sad, pathetic remark to make.  Let me give you just one example of what it might be like.  If you live deep in the heart of Texas, the closest place where you MIGHT be able to obtain an abortion is in Kansas.  That's around an 8 hour drive, one way.  You MIGHT be able to get one in New Mexico.  Both states have restrictions on how far along you are and there are movements to stop abortions completely.  You could well be in your car when the state stops providers from granting abortions.  

 

To be safe and sure the closest and easiest place would be California.  Now we are talking of upwards of a 20 hour drive, one way,  or a very expensive flight -- and the risk of cancellation, delays etc.   

 

So yes, it's a big deal.  

2 hours ago, ozimoron said:

What twisted logic makes abortion a states rights issue? If ever there was a policy screaming out for a national approach this is it.

That "twisted" logic was called the constitution. The tenth amendment states that only those powers that are specifically enumerated belong to the federal government.  All other belong to the states. It was only after liberal Franklin Roosevelt tried to pack the court when he didn't get his way that the court ruled that those activities that involved interstate commerce could be controlled by the federal government.  That opened up most activities.  Not abortion however. It is a states right issue.  in 20 states abortions remain unchanged plus the District of Columbia.  The other 30 states have various restrictions and are free to enact whatever legislation their citizens deem appropriate. 

3 hours ago, billd766 said:

Great idea. Blame the 10 year old victim for not reporting it or going to hospital.

Not blaming, merely pointing out that she did have options.  Additionally as mentioned this case represents a "miniscule" portion of the abortions.  There were 622,000 abortions in the USA last year and 42% of them were to people seeking their second, third, or fourth abortion.  Not 9 year old girls raped.  The left points to the most aggregious case and tries to make it seem that is the norm. 

I am fully in agreement that abortion should be an option in the case of rape, incest, to save the mothers life, or if the child is shown to have a significant birth defect.  That would mean that abortions would be the "exception" and not the go to for irreponsible sexual behavior. 

 

8 minutes ago, Longwood50 said:

Not blaming, merely pointing out that she did have options.  Additionally as mentioned this case represents a "miniscule" portion of the abortions.  There were 622,000 abortions in the USA last year and 42% of them were to people seeking their second, third, or fourth abortion.  Not 9 year old girls raped.  The left points to the most aggregious case and tries to make it seem that is the norm. 

I am fully in agreement that abortion should be an option in the case of rape, incest, to save the mothers life, or if the child is shown to have a significant birth defect.  That would mean that abortions would be the "exception" and not the go to for irreponsible sexual behavior. 

 

It’s about this girls case, not anybody else and no she had very limited options. A medical termination at 5 or 6 weeks is not a pleasant experience for anyone, let alone a 10 year old. It involves many hours   at the hospital after taking the medication to wait for the induced abortion. For a 10 year old this would be horrific

14 minutes ago, Longwood50 said:

That "twisted" logic was called the constitution. The tenth amendment states that only those powers that are specifically enumerated belong to the federal government.  All other belong to the states. It was only after liberal Franklin Roosevelt tried to pack the court when he didn't get his way that the court ruled that those activities that involved interstate commerce could be controlled by the federal government.  That opened up most activities.  Not abortion however. It is a states right issue.  in 20 states abortions remain unchanged plus the District of Columbia.  The other 30 states have various restrictions and are free to enact whatever legislation their citizens deem appropriate. 

So some words on a piece of paper over 200 years ago carry more weight than the reality of today. Why not leave what properly belongs in the 18th century and come into the 21st century of today.

1 minute ago, coolcarer said:

It’s about this girls case, not anybody else and no she had very limited options. A medical termination at 5 or 6 weeks is not a pleasant experience for anyone, let alone a 10 year old. It involves many hours   at the hospital after taking the medication to wait for the induced abortion. For a 10 year old this would be horrific

Almost as horrific as a 17 hour flight to LA according to one poster.

 

Total BS on his part.

 The doctor in Indianapolis who perform the procedure is now under investigation by the Republican Attorney General of Indiana. 

3 hours ago, pegman said:

 The doctor in Indianapolis who perform the procedure is now under investigation by the Republican Attorney General of Indiana. 

These radical right wing anti-abortion extremists will stop at nothing until ALL abortions are criminalized in all 50 states. In fact, that's exactly what they're working on now to change the legal status of fetuses to persons. This is going to be a battle royale. It took these out of touch RADICALS 40 years to accomplish what they did. It may take the majority 40 years to get it back. 

11 hours ago, billd766 said:

So some words on a piece of paper over 200 years ago carry more weight than the reality of today. Why not leave what properly belongs in the 18th century and come into the 21st century of today.

Yes they have served the country well through its first 250 years.  Does the European Union countries all have the same abortion policy or is each country allowed to make its own rules.  The USA was deliberately set up as a Republic to give the states as much control and limit what they feared was a domineering federal government.  Why shouldn't the people of Texas or Florida say what happens in their state versus what is allowed in Maine or New Hampshire.  No different than Germany having a different policy than Poland despite the fact they border each other. 

 

Facts Were Sparse on an Abortion Case. But That Didn’t Stop the Attacks.

 

Others turned the focus on Dr. Bernard. The Indiana attorney general, Todd Rokita, a Republican, said on Fox News on Wednesday night that he would investigate whether the doctor had failed to report the assault and abortion, and suggested that Dr. Bernard had failed to do so in other cases.

On Thursday, The Indianapolis Star reported that records obtained through a public record request showed that Dr. Bernard had done the required reports. Kathleen DeLaney, a lawyer for Dr. Bernard, said in a statement that Dr. Bernard was considering legal action against Mr. Rokita and others.

 

https://www.nytimes.com/2022/07/14/business/media/10-year-old-girl-ohio-rape.html

No paywall link

 

 

11 hours ago, coolcarer said:

It’s about this girls case, not anybody else and no she had very limited options. A medical termination at 5 or 6 weeks is not a pleasant experience for anyone, let alone a 10 year old. It involves many hours   at the hospital after taking the medication to wait for the induced abortion. For a 10 year old this would be horrific

Oh so its "much better" she waited until later in the pregnacy so that the abortion is a more "pleasant experience"  I was born at night but not last night. 

As said, I don't blame the girl, she did have options but for whatever reason did not avail herself of them.  But this pointing to her case and claiming it as a rationale for wholesale abortion is like the NRA seeing a case where a man used a machine gun to protect his family from intruders and using that to justify that everyone should legally be allowed to own a machine gun.  

I favor abortion rights in cases of rape, incest, to save the mothers life, or if the child has severe birth defects.  Those however do not amount to the 622,000 cases of abortion in the USA each year.  The fact that 42% of those people who had an abortion were having their second, third, or fourth shows pretty clearly they were not a huge contingent of rape victims but rather a group of people both men and women who though they claimed to want "control of their body" chose not to take control of their body when deciding to have sex. 

 

4 minutes ago, Longwood50 said:

Oh so its "much better" she waited until later in the pregnacy so that the abortion is a more "pleasant experience"  I was born at night but not last night. 

As said, I don't blame the girl, she did have options but for whatever reason did not avail herself of them.  But this pointing to her case and claiming it as a rationale for wholesale abortion is like the NRA seeing a case where a man used a machine gun to protect his family from intruders and using that to justify that everyone should legally be allowed to own a machine gun.  

I favor abortion rights in cases of rape, incest, to save the mothers life, or if the child has severe birth defects.  Those however do not amount to the 622,000 cases of abortion in the USA each year.  The fact that 42% of those people who had an abortion were having their second, third, or fourth shows pretty clearly they were not a huge contingent of rape victims but rather a group of people both men and women who though they claimed to want "control of their body" chose not to take control of their body when deciding to have sex. 

 

Are you for real? She was just 9 when raped, it was not for a few weeks before it was discovered she was pregnant, how would she know until symptoms appeared and was able to tell her mother?

8 minutes ago, Longwood50 said:

Oh so its "much better" she waited until later in the pregnacy so that the abortion is a more "pleasant experience"  I was born at night but not last night. 

As said, I don't blame the girl, she did have options but for whatever reason did not avail herself of them.  But this pointing to her case and claiming it as a rationale for wholesale abortion is like the NRA seeing a case where a man used a machine gun to protect his family from intruders and using that to justify that everyone should legally be allowed to own a machine gun.  

I favor abortion rights in cases of rape, incest, to save the mothers life, or if the child has severe birth defects.  Those however do not amount to the 622,000 cases of abortion in the USA each year.  The fact that 42% of those people who had an abortion were having their second, third, or fourth shows pretty clearly they were not a huge contingent of rape victims but rather a group of people both men and women who though they claimed to want "control of their body" chose not to take control of their body when deciding to have sex. 

 

It's a 10 year old girl... a child....how does she have 'options' or the ability to make adult decisions ?!

 

 

 

American women are welcome to leave their  theocracy and have an abortion in Canada. We treat abortions as a medical issue between a woman/girl and her doctor. Therefore there are no laws restricting them in any matter nation wide 

13 minutes ago, jak2002003 said:

It's a 10 year old girl... a child....how does she have 'options' or the ability to make adult decisions ?!

Several things.  First off the left would have you believe that she has the right to "select her gender"  

Also, does this girl not have parents?  

Finally, are you arguing that she didn't have the ability at 3 weeks pregant to get an abortion but suddenly she gained infinite amount of wisdom at lets say 14 weeks of pregnancy to have an abortion. 

As said I would favor an abortion in the case of rape, incest, to save the mothers life or if the child had severe birth defects  But using this child as the "example" of why their should be wholesale abortion is disingenous.  It is taking the very infintisamal number of cases like hers and trying to portray it as the norm.  The norm is that 42% of those women going in for an abortion are having their second, third, or fourth.  Those are not "rape victims' They are people that were irresponsible.  Even they had the opportunity following unprotected sex to go to a pharmacy and without a prescription purchase  a pill that would end the pregnancy for up to 5 days after having sex.   Or were these people also lacking the ability to make such an adult decision. 

33 minutes ago, Longwood50 said:

Oh so its "much better" she waited until later in the pregnacy so that the abortion is a more "pleasant experience"  I was born at night but not last night. 

As said, I don't blame the girl, she did have options but for whatever reason did not avail herself of them.  But this pointing to her case and claiming it as a rationale for wholesale abortion is like the NRA seeing a case where a man used a machine gun to protect his family from intruders and using that to justify that everyone should legally be allowed to own a machine gun.  

I favor abortion rights in cases of rape, incest, to save the mothers life, or if the child has severe birth defects.  Those however do not amount to the 622,000 cases of abortion in the USA each year.  The fact that 42% of those people who had an abortion were having their second, third, or fourth shows pretty clearly they were not a huge contingent of rape victims but rather a group of people both men and women who though they claimed to want "control of their body" chose not to take control of their body when deciding to have sex. 

 

I take it you’ve not seen the timeline of events in this OP that’s already been posted.

 

Do you really thing a sadistic monster would rape a nine year old and leave it at that without threatening her not to tell anyone? Poor girl was not only suffering from the pain of the rape but also the emotional trauma of not knowing what the hell just happened to her apart from it was hell.

 

Not till 6 weeks later was mum made aware, either by the girl telling her of symptoms or mum herself noticing.

 

You seem to think it would be a simple case of oh mum I got raped yesterday, I must have a pregnancy test and then abortion. 
 

Unbelievable lack of insight into a child’s emotions and trauma. 

2 minutes ago, coolcarer said:

Unbelievable lack of insight into a child’s emotions and trauma. 

Which part of I favor abortions for a victim of rape did you miss the first three times I posted it.  

However, I also posted this three times.  Using this as an example to justify the 622,000 abortions is disingenous.  This case represents the infinisimal amount of unwanted pregancies not the norm. 

9 minutes ago, Longwood50 said:

Several things.  First off the left would have you believe that she has the right to "select her gender"  

Also, does this girl not have parents?  

Finally, are you arguing that she didn't have the ability at 3 weeks pregant to get an abortion but suddenly she gained infinite amount of wisdom at lets say 14 weeks of pregnancy to have an abortion. 

As said I would favor an abortion in the case of rape, incest, to save the mothers life or if the child had severe birth defects  But using this child as the "example" of why their should be wholesale abortion is disingenous.  It is taking the very infintisamal number of cases like hers and trying to portray it as the norm.  The norm is that 42% of those women going in for an abortion are having their second, third, or fourth.  Those are not "rape victims' They are people that were irresponsible.  Even they had the opportunity following unprotected sex to go to a pharmacy and without a prescription purchase  a pill that would end the pregnancy for up to 5 days after having sex.   Or were these people also lacking the ability to make such an adult decision. 

"Several things.  First off the left would have you believe that she has the right to "select her gender""

 

OK, here come the pitifully lame diversions....

 

"Also, does this girl not have parents?"

 

You talk with such surety about the case yet you haven't even familiarized yourself with the basic details??

 

"Finally, are you arguing that she didn't have the ability at 3 weeks pregnant to get an abortion but suddenly she gained infinite amount of wisdom at lets say 14 weeks of pregnancy to have an abortion."

 

If you're gonna post such drivel I suggest you better just take a break and go watch Fox "news". Talking about a 10 y/o girls "having options" and why didn't she just do this instead of that clearly shows you haven't got the foggiest.

We're talking about a 10 y/o child!!!

3 minutes ago, Longwood50 said:

Which part of I favor abortions for a victim of rape did you miss the first three times I posted it.  

However, I also posted this three times.  Using this as an example to justify the 622,000 abortions is disingenous.  This case represents the infinisimal amount of unwanted pregancies not the norm. 

And yet you continue to question a 10 y/o child's decision making?!

7 minutes ago, Longwood50 said:

Which part of I favor abortions for a victim of rape did you miss the first three times I posted it.  

However, I also posted this three times.  Using this as an example to justify the 622,000 abortions is disingenous.  This case represents the infinisimal amount of unwanted pregancies not the norm. 

If you had left my post intact without deleting it all, then it was very clear what I was referring to in your total lack of insight. Here below……….the rest of your deflection on guns and other rapes is just that, pure deflection. 

 

51 minutes ago, Longwood50 said:

Oh so its "much better" she waited until later in the pregnacy so that the abortion is a more "pleasant experience"  I was born at night but not last night. 

As said, I don't blame the girl, she did have options but for whatever reason did not avail herself of them.  

 

Edited July 15, 20224 yr by coolcarer

9 minutes ago, Phoenix Rising said:

And yet you continue to question a 10 y/o child's decision making?!

What I said, was that saying the child lacked the decision making capability at 3 weeks pregnant to have an abortion and suddenly gaining that "adult wisdom" at 13 weeks pregant to have an abortion is nonsensicle. 

However the main point is that the left is using this as the poster case for why we should allow wholesale abortion.  That is like th National Rifle Association seeing a case where a person used a machine gun to save the lives of his family from intruders and using that as a basis to justify allowing everyone to own a machine gun. 

They are pointing to the infintisimal amount of cases that I believe most people would favor.  Rape, incest, life of the mother, or a child with severe birth defects.  Not the 42% of the 622,000 abortions to people who want "control of their body" but somehow did not want to control it with a birth control pill, condom or day after pill.  

Assuming that the facts are that the girl was raped, and was too embarrassed or lacked the judgement to go to her parents or authorities I believe she should have been allowed to have an abortion. 

What is especially hypocritical is that many of the same people who are now claiming this girl at age 10 lacked the intellectual ability to go to her parents or police, claim that a 5 year old should be able to decide on their gender identity.  

Abortion remains unchanged in 20 states and the District of Columbia.  At will.  Most of Europe denies abortion at timeframes ranging from typically from 8 to 14 weeks with Malta, Poland, and Litchenstein having total bans.  So the USA is not any different than Europe.  Different areas have different laws.  

In Ohio abortion is still permitted until a fetal heartbeat is detected.  That would be 4 - 6 weeks after the rape.  The fact she had to travel to another state to have an abortion only shows she still had a choice albeit an inconvenient one. 

3 minutes ago, Longwood50 said:

What I said, was that saying the child lacked the decision making capability at 3 weeks pregnant to have an abortion and suddenly gaining that "adult wisdom" at 13 weeks pregant to have an abortion is nonsensicle. 

However the main point is that the left is using this as the poster case for why we should allow wholesale abortion.  That is like th National Rifle Association seeing a case where a person used a machine gun to save the lives of his family from intruders and using that as a basis to justify allowing everyone to own a machine gun. 

They are pointing to the infintisimal amount of cases that I believe most people would favor.  Rape, incest, life of the mother, or a child with severe birth defects.  Not the 42% of the 622,000 abortions to people who want "control of their body" but somehow did not want to control it with a birth control pill, condom or day after pill.  

Assuming that the facts are that the girl was raped, and was too embarrassed or lacked the judgement to go to her parents or authorities I believe she should have been allowed to have an abortion. 

What is especially hypocritical is that many of the same people who are now claiming this girl at age 10 lacked the intellectual ability to go to her parents or police, claim that a 5 year old should be able to decide on their gender identity.  

Abortion remains unchanged in 20 states and the District of Columbia.  At will.  Most of Europe denies abortion at timeframes ranging from typically from 8 to 14 weeks with Malta, Poland, and Litchenstein having total bans.  So the USA is not any different than Europe.  Different areas have different laws.  

In Ohio abortion is still permitted until a fetal heartbeat is detected.  That would be 4 - 6 weeks after the rape.  The fact she had to travel to another state to have an abortion only shows she still had a choice albeit an inconvenient one. 

No what you're saying is nonsense and includes a complete lack of the facts of the case. She was 9 when raped, a nine year old does not even know what that is! It was 5/6 weeks later when the abortion took place not 13. Only after her mother was made aware of what happened.